DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, & 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rowe (20030234231).
PNG
media_image1.png
271
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Rowe teaches a bracket assembly (10, 17), characterized in comprising a bracket (10) comprising a first bracket wall (E in Fig. 5 Annotated) and a second bracket wall (F) arranged in opposition to each other (Fig. 5) and defining a mounting cavity (G) therebetween; wherein the bracket assembly further comprises a guide structure (17) provided in the mounting cavity (Fig. 5), which is configured for passage therethrough of a fastener (9) for attaching a carrier component (5) to the bracket (via 17) and to allow fasteners of the same size to be used at different locations of the bracket (implied by Figs. 3 & 5 - note that 17 could be positioned at different locations on 10 given appropriately-sized and appropriately-positioned holes); wherein the guide structure comprises a connecting portion (21-22), a through hole (i.e., hole in 20-22, labeled “H” in Fig. 5 Annotated, through which the fastener (9) and an associated screwdriver pass (see par. 34-35 & Fig. 5)) used for passage of the fastener therethrough (implied by Fig. 5 & par. 34-35), and a guide channel (19) used for passage of the fastener therethrough (Fig. 5); wherein one end (J) of the connecting portion is connected to the bracket, an opposite end (22) of the connecting portion is provided with the through hole (H) and is perpendicularly connected (via 18 - see Fig. 4) to the guide channel (see Fig. 5, showing 19 & 22 extending perpendicularly to each other); wherein the guide channel (19) is located above (Fig. 5) the through hole (H) and extends along a direction in which the fastener is mounted (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Rowe teaches a guide structure (17) integrally formed (Fig. 5) with the bracket (10).
Regarding claim 5, Rowe teaches a guide structure (17) detachably connected (par. 36) to the bracket (10).
Regarding claim 7, Rowe teaches a guide structure (17) that further has a locating portion (23) which is joined to the connecting portion (21-22) and extends out (Fig. 5) of the mounting cavity (G) and is configured to abut (via 10) against the carrier component (5).
Regarding claim 16, Rowe teaches a storage rack system (Fig. 3), comprising an upright column (1, 2), a bracket assembly (10, 17) and a carrier component (5), the bracket assembly comprising a bracket (10) comprising a first bracket wall (E) and a second bracket wall (F), which are arranged in opposition to each other and define a mounting cavity (G) therebetween, the bracket coupled at one end to the upright column (Fig. 3), the carrier component attached to the bracket (Fig. 3 & par. 35-36), wherein the bracket is configured to allow carrier components of at least two different structures to be attached thereto (since the bracket (10) could clearly be attached to two differently-shaped shelves (i.e., carrier components of two different structures)).
Regarding claim 17, Rowe teaches a carrier component (5) that comprises a shelf (5) which is attached to the bracket (10) by a fastener (9 - see Figs. 3 & 5 and par. 35-36).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe (20030234231) in view of Kim (KR100979280).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Rowe teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a bracket (10) & an upright column; but fail(s) to teach an anti-dislodgement structure. However, Kim teaches locking means (44, 46, 48, B-D in Fig. 6a Annotated) comprising an anti-dislodgement structure (44, 46, C) disposed within (Figs. 6a-6b) the mounting cavity (A) of a bracket (49), the anti-dislodgement structure configured to be able to move relative to the bracket (Figs. 6a-6b), the anti-dislodgement structure comprising a stop portion (44) configured to be able to extend out of the mounting cavity of the bracket and be coupled to an upright column (30) or horizontal beam to which the bracket is coupled (Fig. 7), thereby restricting the bracket from dislodging from the upright column or horizontal beam (par. 33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add locking means, as taught by Kim, to the bracket assembly of Rowe, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent accidental dislodgment of the bracket from the upright column (as suggested by par. 33 of Kim).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches an anti-dislodgement structure (44, 46, C) that comprises a stop element (44, C) comprising a slide portion (C) and the stop portion (44), the stop portion located at one end of the slide portion (Fig. 6a-6b), the slide portion able to slide relative to the bracket (49) so that the stop portion extends out of a mounting cavity (A) or that the stop portion disengages from the upright column or horizontal beam (Figs. 6a-6b).
Claims 10-11 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe (20030234231) & Kim (KR100979280) in view of Friedmann (1702937).
Regarding claim 10, Rowe as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first (E of Rowe) & second (F of Rowe) bracket walls and a slide portion (C of Kim); but fail(s) to teach a first slide slot. However, Friedmann teaches guiding means (49, 51) comprising a first slide slot (49) in a first bracket wall (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add guiding means, as taught by Friedmann, to the assembly of Rowe as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the slide portion to slidably move in a controlled manner. Hence, Rowe as modified would teach a slide portion (C of Kim & 51 of Friedmann) that is slidably disposed in the first slide slot (49 of Friedmann).
Regarding claim 11, Rowe as modified teaches an anti-dislodgement structure (44, 46, C of Kim & 51 of Friedmann) comprising a manipulation portion (46 of Kim) protruding out of the bracket (10 of Rowe), the manipulation portion joined (as in Fig. 6a of Kim) to the slide portion (C of Kim & 51 of Friedmann), the manipulation portion actuatable by an external force to cause the slide portion to slide (as in Figs. 6a-6b of Kim) in the first slide slot (49 of Friedman), and the bracket defines a first avoidance slot (D of Kim), the manipulation portion passing through the first avoidance slot and protruding out of the bracket (as in Fig. 6a of Kim).
Regarding claim 15, Rowe as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a bracket (10 of Rowe); but fail(s) to teach an adjustment member or slide slot. However, Friedmann teaches adjustment means (55, 76) comprising an adjustment member (55) movable relative to a bracket (53) out of or into a mounting cavity (54) thereof, wherein the adjustment member, when extending out of the mounting cavity, is located at an end of the bracket, thereby increasing a length of the bracket (Fig. 7), and wherein: the adjustment member is slidably coupled to the bracket (implied by Figs. 7-8; p. 3, line 78; & p. 4, lines 39-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add adjustment means, as taught by Friedmann, to the assembly of Rowe as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the assembly to accommodate shelves having different widths. Hence, Rowe as modified would teach an adjustment member (55 of Friedman) connected to a bracket (10 of Rowe) by connecting means (74, 76 of Friedman). Additionally, Friedmann further teaches connecting means (49-52) comprising a slide slot (49) defined in a first bracket wall (17) of a bracket (12) & extending in a lengthwise direction of the bracket (Figs. 1-2), and a slide (51) of an adjustment member (12a) that is slidable within the slide slot (Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute connecting means, as taught by Friedmann, for the connecting means of Rowe as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow infinite adjustment of the length to which the adjustment member extends, thereby allowing the bracket to accommodate a greater variety of shelf widths.
Claims 8-9 & 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe (20030234231) in view of Keil (1974050).
Regarding claim 8, Rowe teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first & second bracket walls and a mounting cavity; but fail(s) to teach an anti-dislodgement structure. However, Keil teaches connecting means (20f & 27-30) comprising an anti-dislodgement structure (27 & 29-30) disposed within a mounting cavity (20f) of a bracket (20), the anti-dislodgement structure configured to be able to move relative to the bracket (p. 2, lines 103-110 & 128-140), the anti-dislodgement structure comprising a stop portion (30e) configured to be able to extend out of the mounting cavity of the bracket and be coupled to an upright column or horizontal beam to which the bracket is coupled (Fig. 1), thereby restricting the bracket from dislodging from the upright column or horizontal beam (p. 2, lines 151-154). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add connecting means, as taught by Keil, to the assembly of Rowe, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent accidental dislodgment of the bracket.
Regarding claim 9, Keil teaches anti-dislodgement structure (27 & 29-30) that comprises a stop element (30) comprising a slide portion (30a-30b) and the stop portion (30e), the stop portion located at one end of the slide portion (Fig. 1), the slide portion able to slide relative to a bracket (20) so that the stop portion extends out of a mounting cavity (20f) or that the stop portion disengages from the upright column or horizontal beam (Figs. 1 & 3).
Regarding claim 12, Rowe as modified teaches an anti-dislodgement structure (27 & 29-30 of Keil) that comprises a support member (27 of Keil) disposed on the first bracket wall and/or the second bracket wall of the bracket (10 of Rowe), the support member defining a second slide slot (28b of Keil) along which the slide portion is configured to be slidable (Figs. 1 & 3 of Keil).
Regarding claim 13, Rowe as modified teaches an anti-dislodgement structure (27 & 29-30 of Keil) that further comprises a manipulation portion (29 of Keil) sleeved on the slide portion (30a-30b of Keil), wherein the slide portion defines a first thread (30b of Keil) and a portion of the manipulation portion in contact with the slide portion defines a second thread in engagement with the first thread (implied by Fig. 1 & p. 2, lines 96-98 of Keil) so that the slide portion is actuated to move when the manipulation portion is rotated (p. 2, lines 103-110 & 128-140 of Keil); the bracket (5 of Rowe) defines a second avoidance slot (20f of Keil) at which the support member is provided; and the manipulation portion is disposed in the support member (27 of Keil) and is at least partially exposed outside of the bracket (implied by Figs. 7 & 11 of Keil).
Regarding claim 14, Keil teaches a first thread (30b) that is absent from a surface of the stop portion (30e) in contact (via 30a) with the second slide slot (28b).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe (20030234231) in view of Nilsson (20190110593).
Regarding claim 18, Rowe teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a carrier component (5) & bracket (10); but fail(s) to teach a carrier component attached to the bracket by a guide rail. However, Nilsson teaches support means (7, 9, 15-17, 19, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 39) comprising a carrier component (9) is attached to a bracket (5) by means of a guide rail (27) to which the carrier component is slidably coupled (par. 22 and Figs. 1 & 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute support means, as taught by Nilsson, for the carrier component of Rowe, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the contents of the carrier component more accessible to a user (as suggested by Fig. 11 of Nilsson).
Regarding claims 19-20, Rowe as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first connecting means (19, 23, 25 of Nilsson) comprising a notch (19 of Nilsson) defined in a bracket (10 of Rowe); an engagement element (23 of Nilsson) defined in a guide rail (27 of Nilsson) & protruding from a side surface thereof (Fig. 6 of Nilsson) & engaging in the notch (Figs. 3-4 of Nilsson), and wherein the engagement element is an engagement hook (Fig. 4 of Nilsson); and a stopper (25 of Nilsson) of the guide rail which protrudes from the side surface and engages in the same notch as the engagement element at an opposite ends of the notch (Fig. 4 of Nilsson). Rowe as modified fail(s) to teach a plurality of notches, engagement elements, & stoppers. However, mere duplication & rearrangement of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04); and Nilsson broadly teaches arranging second connecting means (17, 19, 23, 31) in a row (Figs. 3-5) with the first connecting means (19, 23, 25) in a lengthwise direction of a bracket (5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an additional first connecting means to the assembly of Rowe as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a stronger connection between the guide rail & bracket. Hence, Rowe as modified would teach a bracket (10 of Rowe) defines a plurality of notches (19 of Nilsson) arranged in a row in a lengthwise direction of a bracket (as in Fig. 3 of Nilsson); a plurality of engagement elements (23 of Nilsson); and stoppers (25 of Nilsson).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Said arguments have been addressed in the prior art rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights